MEUS asserts CC & D has not pleaded facts that show it could be liable to CC & D for any portion of the potential judgment against CC & D. In making this argument, MEUS relies heavily upon Judge Lungstrum's decision in Burlington Northern v. Cosco North America, Inc., 2003 WL 21685908 (D.Kan. July 15, 2003). CC & D responds that it is under no obligation at this time to allege or commit to any particular type of indemnity claim.
Id. at 455, 618 P.2d at 799-800.Burlington N. v. Cosco N. Am., Inc., No. 03-2065-JWL, 2003 WL 21685908, at *3 (D. Kan. July 15, 2003); Kennedy, 618 P.2d at 799-800; Nold, 202 F. Supp. 2d at 1269.Haysville, 233 Kan. at 642, 666 P.2d at 199.
Accordingly, we conclude that the business court did not err in granting A3-USA's motion to dismiss WWC's third-party claim for implied indemnity because WWC failed to adequately plead the necessary elements of that claim. See, e.g. , Burlington N. v. Cosco N. Am., Inc. , No. 03-2065-JWL, 2003 WL 21685908, at *4 (D. Kan. 2003) ("Cosco's allegations fail to state an implied contractual indemnification claim. While Cosco pleads that the alleged derailment occurred without ‘any fault, negligence, act or omission of [it],’ it does not allege that there was a relationship—such as principal and agent—that would cause it to be vicariously liable for Nippon Express's actions."